Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Gotta Pay Your Dues? | Main | Old Religious Objects »

January 30, 2007


Tom A

nick nack googlewhack give the dog a bone?

Mary Kay

Jimmy, I must say that your blog is an educational experience. I learn all sorts of things that I wouldn't never have thought of on my own.


Okay, I had to look up ediacaran. Jimmy, that is a strange compliment but way to go. Not sure if I will get used to the term googlewhack.......Please don't put that on the next "Who wants to be an apologist!" Just kidding.
At least you weren't plutotized!
If our kids had there way, they would add the word "splicky" combination of sticky and slicky only to be used to describe what those hand sanitiizers make your hands feel like!


When I try it, is says 1-1 of about 0. According to the Wikipedia article Jimmy links to, it should say 1-1 of 1.


If our kids had there way, they would add the word "splicky" combination of sticky and slicky...


Wouldn't sticky + slicky = "stlicky"?



Trackback, googlewhack: Jimmy blogs alone!


This one was a twofer: I learned about Googlewhacking AND elgooG by following the link! Some people have too much free time on their hands.


ahhh. some one has way to much time on their hands, but still it's kind of cool.


LOL...Esau I don't want to hijack this thread but I guess you would be right. I seem to remember someone saying "slippery" as they were creating the word tho. I have to say splicky is easier to say than stlicky.
And the googlewhack award for 2007 goes to.....

You know, I don't think I could have won that award on PURPOSE!!! :0)


One more thing Jimmy,
And we thought we were getting 1 in a MILLION
YOur 1 in 3 billion


I hope my English teacher isn't looking at this...

That is
YOU ARE 1 in 3 BILLION Jimmy....



I have to say splicky is easier to say than stlicky.


Actually, I prefer your "splicky" over my "stlicky" any day! Sounds better, too, and easier on the tongue! ;^)


"1 in 3 BILLION, chance of a lifetime.
Life showed compassion,
and sent to me a stroke of luck called you...
1 in 3 BILLION."


As impressive as Jimmy's 1 in 3 Billion accomplishment is, I'm even more amazed that someone thought of typing in the words 'ediacaran gerrymandered' to begin with.


On a lark, I went to my most recent article at Decent Films and Googled a few unusual term combinations. Sure enough, I found a pair of terms unmatched on Google, which means that as soon as Google finds my page, I'll be a Googlewhack! (I won't post the two words here until the Googlewhack comes through, or I may sabotage the results -- and please, if you figure them out, don't post them here either!)

David B.

I'll take a whack at it. Is it "thematic P!@#)*!&" or "Non-dissenting C!#!(*#&&"?

David B.

Never mind. I just checked 'em both out. I waz rong.



I think I found it -- but, the one I have is some strange combo, though! ;^)

David B.


It has to be your discription of Gerry Matatics, no?


Do you want me to divulge one of the words to David B.???

David B.

Score: David B. 0
Esau 2(?)


A Yahoowhack is just as effective and their P/E ratio much more realistic.


Of course, once your post about this googlewhack is indexed, it ceases to be a googlewhack...


Okay, I like the misspelling workaround. The two terms are "fe@turettes" and "Feeney1te." (I decided my best chance at a Googlewhack was to combine one obscure theological term with one obscure film industry term.)

Both terms are in the required dictionary, and the combination of the two words occurs only in my article.

However, Google still hasn't found my page, so I'm not yet an official Googlewhack.


Jimmy, you should you write a book about your blog, I think you found your title:

Ediacaran Gerrymandered.


It's official! I'm a Googlewhack!

David B.

Congrats Steve! And thanks for the answer. I'm afraid I was starting to look like an idiot!


...but now my whack went away! Google was finding the page five minutes ago, and now it isn't! What the heck?

David B.

There must be some big time anti-Catholic movies producers behind google.



Your Googlewhack is back, Steve. :-)


I'm afraid I was starting to look like an idiot!

David B.:

You do that well on your own! ;^P


Your Googlewhack is back, Steve. :-)

Yes, I saw it -- and now it's gone again.

Could it have to do with some search index replication process across multiple servers at Google?

FWIW, I'm usually pretty pleased at how frequently Decent Films gravitates toward the top of the Google heap in relevant searches. This found it / lost it thing is weird, though.


the stlicky/splicky debate is linguisticly so much fun! I love blending, especially like this where you get words like ginormous, crunk and one I came up with because of loud obnoctious people I had to sit with after attending a U2 concert, "Sminking" smoking/drinking

Rich Blagden

Hi chaps!

I was just revisiting some old Googlewhacks, and I was delighted to find that Jimmy's page has sparked a few comments. Some, such as the successful Thai colorectal disease doctor, didn't even bother to reply, let alone blog it. so Jimmy; I'm eternally grateful.

Unfortunately, 'feeneyite featurettes' isn't quite a 'whack. It does indeed lead to one result, but if you look in the top right-hand corner neither word is underlined in blue. So they're not in the online dictionary that Google uses, and therefore not a 'whack. Sorry to bring the bad news. If you want to check validity, the place to do it is at http://www.googlewhack.com/ where all the subtle nuances are taken into account.

I'm going to scarper now, before I get a kicking. All the best!


The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31